Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

A failure low in the building from thermal expansion would be indistinguishable from a failure low in the building due to a quiet demolition. If no
weeks of preparation, precuts, cabling, and charge placement occurred, could a few well placed charges have dropped the building in its footprint?

Most of us on ATS are NOT demolition experts, hence the reason for the thread - an EXPERT testimony.

I am aware that most people on the site have not made or used high explosives. Your so-called expert doesn't seem too swift, demolition-wise. His
experience is limited to a narrow band of commercial explosives in a specific application where all he did was place charges under the direction of
others. Ask him the question above and see how he responds.

Note to AquariusDescending: Don't assume you know anything about the posters on this board, including their training, motivations, capabilities, and
experiences.

A failure low in the building from thermal expansion would be indistinguishable from a failure low in the building due to a quiet demolition. If no
weeks of preparation, precuts, cabling, and charge placement occurred, could a few well placed charges have dropped the building in its footprint?

So this is your scientific example of a steel reinforced building going down like building 7 that isn't Controlled demolition? You have nothing?

That building was rigged way before Sept. 11 for sure. People heard plenty of explosions. Nobody is claiming that it had to be a few bombs. Are you
being paid for putting out misinformation to fool the fools? Seems like their is about 2 of you left.

There are major problems with this story that can only be explained by deliberate deceit.

This image appears on the AE911Truth website in the story about the interview with Tom Sullivan and it is claimed that it is of a thermite cutter
charge patent from 1984. It is not.

This is a “thermite igniter/heat source for igniting larger charges (like) propellant charges” in say a booster of some kind.

In answer to a question about the use of det cord and cutter charge casings, Tom Sullivan answered, in part, as follows…

“Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.

As you can see, AE911Truth presents this image as a “thermite cutter charge” patent from 1984 and that is false. (Notice that there is no
reference given in the AE911Truth article linking to this 1984 document.)

It is actually an ignition system that used a small thermite core to lite a larger charge for a booster or some other kind of propellant. Here is the
patent

This invention relates to a new low-energy integral thermite igniter/heat source, e.g., for use in igniting larger charges, e.g., propellant charges.
The device of this invention is highly efficient especially in terms of energy output versus the amount of material utilized and also has
advantageously low gas output… Accordingly, the devices are applicable to all conventional systems utilizing such thermite igniter/heat sources,
e.g., in place of conventional propellant igniters. 1984 patent for thermite igniter/heat source.

Who fact checked this slide? Who included it with the article without any links to the original source? Who put that caption on it that claims this
information relates to a “cutter charge designed for use with thermite” when it clearly is NOT? Who selectively edited the abstract taking out
the mention of the fact that this is a “thermite igniter” for a propellant charge? Who chose an image of a MINING demolition controller which is
incapable of being used for building demolitions when CDI has their own software driven system that is? These are serious questions that require
immediate retractions for the good of the credibility of Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, and the entire Truth movement.

Just saw the above post. He said that the other buildings were NOT controlled demolitions. Only building 7. Either way it's still a hoax.

People just fish around and try to find anything to create a conspiracy.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by DrJay1975]

Nope. He believes all three were destroyed by CD.

"And as Sullivan watched the towers collapse that day, like so many did, he pondered at how fast it all took place, and how suddenly and
symmetrically they were brought down. "I knew it was an explosive event as soon as I saw it, there was no question in my mind," said Sullivan. Most
of us agree -- it's not by chance that the first tower just happened to collapse -- then the second in the same manner. What convinced him completely
is when he watched Tower 7 fall that day, "I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was
the end game for me." Keep in mind that Sullivan did this for a living for several years -- it is like second nature for him to see this type of
demolition. If anybody would know, it should be him. But we went ahead and asked him, “Is there any chance that normal office fires (the official
cause of the ’collapse’) could have been responsible for the smooth, symmetrical, free-fall acceleration of building 7? “Not a chance,” he
retorted. We just wanted to be sure.

When we asked him if he followed any of the 9/11 Commission hearings or that of the NIST reporting, he had the same answer for both "I have no
tolerance for people who lie to me about what I know to be true. I threw my hands up in disgust and never watched another hearing after the first. As
for NIST, I didn't even watch because I knew what to expect." He did however follow the final report on the collapse of Tower 7 and said it angered
him that they could actually convince so many of their fraudulent claims."

Originally posted by Qwenn
So when the tv inteview was shot DR said " so we decided to pull it ", meaning controlled demolition, however we all know the amount of days it
would take to pull building 7.

The only instance of 'Pull it' ever appearing in controlled demolition matters, is when a building is physically pulled down with cables (as
happened to WTC6).

It has NEVER meant a controlled demolition, that's something conspiracy theorists have made up.

Wrong, well you're right about the origin of the term, but it also became slang for any demo especially by older workers. It's just an easy term,
'we're gonna pull the building', to use. Just because it doesn't official;y mean to demolish a building using explosives it doesn't mean the
term is not used for such.

It makes sense Silverstein would use an old term, he's an old guy, and has been involved in building demolitions most of his life. He made his
fortune buying up old developments, demolishing them and re-building. It's his expertise, he new exactly what he meant when he put emphasis on the
words 'pull it'.

You're just flailing around desperate to dissociate the term from controlled demolitions.

Show me where the term 'pull it' has ever been used in that context to mean anything else. Show me where 'pull it' has ever been used to mean
people, firemen, an operation in progress. If you could drop the bias and use some logic and common sense it's obvious what he meant.
Your 'feelings' about the 9-11 incident don't count.

I have absolutely no expertise in this area, so the way I look at things like this, is I take the consensus of the experts as the most likely
explanation. It's the same way I have to look at many scientific things, as I cannot afford to spend the 10 years needed to become an expert in
every subject.

So far, the majority of experts fall on the side of "no foul play", so I accept their position. To do otherwise would be overiding a scientific
consensus with my hunchs or biases, and that would be rather silly.

A gentleman who mostly took pictures of demolitions and did some real low level explosives packing, makes him a "top expert" in demolitions.

and people accuse me of being a troll for pointing out the serious flaw in that logic????

And somehow this guy trumps ACTUAL demolition professionals who actually BLOW UP buildings for a living, and actually disagree completely with the
demolition ideas. Simply stunning. A photographer is a better expert at demolition than those that actually do it. I am at a loss for words. And here
everybody goes "ga-ga" over what he says, because he thinks it looks like a demolition, there fore it must be total proof of demolition.

And did everyone who believed this guy even listen to the actual pro's who disagree completely with the demolition idea?

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
So this is your scientific example of a steel reinforced building going down like building 7 that isn't Controlled demolition? You have nothing?

That building was rigged way before Sept. 11 for sure. People heard plenty of explosions. Nobody is claiming that it had to be a few bombs. Are you
being paid for putting out misinformation to fool the fools? Seems like their is about 2 of you left.

I asked unanswered questions that remain unanswered. You and many others ask for examples so that comparisons can be made. People in Hell want
icewater, too. The examples of structurally compromised hi-rise buildings with uncontrollable and unfought fires are limited to the WTC. Controlled
demolition videos are readily available on the web. A simple comparison of the videos shows that the only common element is collapse.
Controlled demolitions are usually noisy immediately before collapse; WTC 7 wasn't, so it seems that you have little to go on other than invoking the
super-secret quiet explosives. Random noises are not evidence of explosive charges, especially those randomly spaced over a long period of time.
Thermite is practically impossible to time in a controlled demolition which is why it is not a preferred demolition material for such structures.

Your claim of "That building was rigged way before Sept. 11 for sure" is without merit. It should read that you'd like to believe that the building
was rigged way before Sept. 11 but there is no evidence and no witnesses, just your feeling that it didn't topple over like it should have.
To rig the building as a CD, there would be precuts, cables to direct the fall, and many charges tied to suports. There would also be at least one
blasting machine, primacord, wiring, and a building that wouldn't be a safe place to work. If your expert was correct about radio controlled
demolitions, it would not be safe to have any electrical power in the building at all, everyone would be wearing conductive shoes, and there would be
no cell phones or two-way radios allowed.
The building plans would have indicated the best locations for the charges would have been on the cantilevered beams. When these went off, they would
still be noisy because of their required sizes and the building would come down immediately, not minutes or hours later. Your "expert' is wrong
about the glass breaking. The overpressure would easily pop the glass.
I am not being paid for helping those without technical knowledge in this area to understand that claims of CD of WTC#7 are unsupported. It is a
thankless task, as the students are reluctant to learn anything but seem happy memorizing and repeating the faulty logic of ther manipulators.

Originally posted by ANOK
Show me where the term 'pull it' has ever been used in that context to mean anything else. Show me where 'pull it' has ever been used to mean
people, firemen, an operation in progress. If you could drop the bias and use some logic and common sense it's obvious what he meant.
Your 'feelings' about the 9-11 incident don't count.

...they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too...

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people
out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back.

Hell, one of your fellow conspiracy theorists even went and had a look around, and he couldn't fint anything either:
web.archive.org...://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222

Can I ask for a source that says 'Pull it' is used amongst older demolition workers?

I understand where you are going with this but I am trying to tell you that this is a very flawed approach.

You are basically saying that because this guy who just takes pictures of demolitions, is just as, if not more qualified than those who actually work
on demolitions and actually rig, set, prep, and detonate demolition charges. That goes back to what I said about me watching cars going by. Just
because I watched cars drive by and took pictures of them, that does not mean I know exactly what type of engine is inside, what kind of spark plugs
its got, what type of filter, if its got a NO2 system. No matter how many times you see something, does not make it that exact same thing
everytime.

How would he be able to tell a catastrophic system failure from a demolition? If I showed a video of the Minnesota bridge collapse to someone who
watched bridge demolitions for 20 years of his life, and he said it looked like a demolition, does that mean it was demolished? Can we use his
"status" as an expert in bridge demos? I dont think so.

I'd rather listen to those who actually WORK in the business, that studied the events, actually blow up buildings for a living, and KNOW what they
are talking about. Some photographer who took photos of demolitions is not a "top expert" in anything but photography. But there are many, many,
many, many more REAL top experts who agree it WASNT controlled demolition. Why do you pick the one or two wanna-be "experts" and ignore the rest of
the pros?

Originally posted by GenRadek
But there are many, many, many, many more REAL top experts who agree it WASNT controlled demolition. Why do you pick the one or two wanna-be
"experts" and ignore the rest of the pros?

I would love to know more about the people you mention. Many, many people dont have a statement on it, but I don't know of many who adamantly,
vehemently side with the original story.

If you know of them and have citations it would make a great thread!

***

I see your rationale on the photographer idea, on the other hand we don't know what was in the building or whether it was controlled demo or not. The
only hard evidence we have to work with in the Bldg 7 issue is what it looked like from the outside (and of course Silverstein's quote about "pull
it ... and we watched the building collapse" which, to me, is the coup de grace) but the only verifiable evidence is the video of the building
collapsing, therefore you get someone who knows what collapsing buildings look like vis-a-vis Tom Sullivan.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But there are many, many, many, many more REAL top experts who agree it WASNT controlled demolition. Why do you pick the one or two wanna-be
"experts" and ignore the rest of the pros?

I would love to know more about the people you mention. Many, many people dont have a statement on it, but I don't know of many who adamantly,
vehemently side with the original story.

If you know of them and have citations it would make a great thread!

***

I don't know if you would say that someone adamantly sides with the original story when they say that they believe that airplane damage and fire
caused the collapse of the twin towers. I don't know if you would say that someone adamantly sides with the OS when they do an independant
investigation with similar results to the OS.

These sources are cited now without me having a clear understanding of what you would consider adamant or vehement.

Sources from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most
prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and
Perdue.

TBH, it doesn't matter if the best demolition expert in the world says "I know for a fact, after years and years of exprience, that 911 was
controlled demolition", because people will always be like "well it's opinion really" or "he's not really an expert" or stuff like that.

For excample, Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years, who has designed steel framed buildings, amongst others, all his life. Who is undeniable an
"Expert" at designing buildings says it was controlled demolition and shows you PROOF of so, but people will be like "Yeah, well he aint no expert.
He doesn't know what he's talking about"

This is part one. Watch all of them if you're interested in another EXPERTS opinion on 911 being controlled demolition. This guy isn't just
throwing biased, made up, garbage ideas at you. No. He is giving you evidence after evidence of how this, in his EXPERT eyes, is controlled
demolition.

You can just simply look at how it fell and say it was a controlled demolition without any confirmation from a so called expert. It is a no
brainer.

What these conspirators failed to do and they could have caused it to be more believable and drew less flack from conspiracy folks had they explained
the demolitions.

But they didn't. Power makes the powerful sloppy and reckless.

Example what they could have said...
WTC7 was destroyed because we wanted to destroy National Security information in the building because our servers were being hacked and a breach had
been detected in the building security protocols.

WTC tower 1 and 2.

We rigged these buildings for a controlled collapse after the 1993 bomb attack in which that was the plan...to topple one building into the other. We
wouldn't want the towers falling over like a tree being cut down over many many city blocks now would we?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.